U.S. Marine jailed in Philippines for killing transgender woman

a reply to: Metallicus

It isn't rape unless the person did something to him he didnt want, end of story. Yes he was lied to but that doesn't make it rape if he willing let the person preform the act.

And once you found out you have been lied to, being mad is not a reason for self defense. That is just agression, those are the opposite of each other. You have every right to be mad, but let's stop this justifying of him attacking the person just because he was lied to and was mad about it.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He didn't kill a transgender woman, he killed a man that wanted to be a woman but was born a man.

I would have had a hard time containing my rage at the manipulation and deceipt myself.

Their countrys definition over rides yours.

a reply to: yuppa

TEll that to her family man. They needed her income. now shes dead due to some virgin over reacting.

Do you have evidence that he was a virgin or are you just attempting to degrade the victim?

Also, I would be happy to tell the family that it was being a deceitful douche and got what it deserved. Now if you can prove the marine knew in advance that this thing was male then I would agree he didn't have a right to be angry, but I think you can tell from his reaction that he didn't know and I think his anger was justified.

AND I think it is manslaughter regardless, but as you alluded to in another of your responses that the laws of the country it occurred in supersede anything we think about what happened. I can only speak for myself, but if I was on the jury I would convict of manslaughter, but not of murder.

You can't go around doing the wrong thing and expect someone won't be angry or respond violently to your deception.

It's absolutely disgusting that anyone would even think of condoning MURDER.. to even say it out loud

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: yuppa

TEll that to her family man. They needed her income. now shes dead due to some virgin over reacting.

Do you have evidence that he was a virgin or are you just attempting to degrade the victim?

Also, I would be happy to tell the family that it was being a deceitful douche and got what it deserved. Now if you can prove the marine knew in advance that this thing was male then I would agree he didn't have a right to be angry, but I think you can tell from his reaction that he didn't know and I think his anger was justified.

AND I think it is manslaughter regardless, but as you alluded to in another of your responses that the laws of the country it occurred in supersede anything we think about what happened. I can only speak for myself, but if I was on the jury I would convict of manslaughter, but not of murder.

You can't go around doing the wrong thing and expect someone won't be angry or respond violently to your deception.

In the story it says he was sexually in experienced. usually that mean a virgin.
And in a civilized country where you are to respect everyones rights Yes you can be expected to not act out violently. The marine was a classless rube. It takes two to tango. he should had asked first but "im drunk" excuse is in play here.

His anger would not justify the killing of another person to protect their supposed honor or manhood. HE should get death for his crime. In the states he would a got death sentence or life because we define murder differently.

Also IF you really mean what you say about telling her family that please do so and show us how that goes. Were waiting.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
It's absolutely disgusting that anyone would even think of condoning MURDER.. to even say it out loud

And I think its disgusting anyone here would condone RAPE.


The marine should not have killed her as it went beyond defence and into manslaughter.. But they committed rape by deceiving him.

He should of just punched her in the face and ran.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
It's absolutely disgusting that anyone would even think of condoning MURDER.. to even say it out loud

I know right,but hey its just another dead gay person right?(sarcasm MUCH MUCH SARCASM) Sheesh. It urks me that just because its a mans man who is in trouble the bro force comes out and justifies it with they deserved it. ALWAYS shift the blame to the VICTIM when the victims dead.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
It's absolutely disgusting that anyone would even think of condoning MURDER.. to even say it out loud

And I think its disgusting anyone here would condone RAPE.


The marine should not have killed her as it went beyond defence and into manslaughter.. But they committed rape by deceiving him.

He should of just punched her in the face and ran.

Question. Does the country he was in have a rape by deceiit law on the books? if it does then Ok you got a point. if not then there was no defense of his action. In the us 27 states do not have such a law on the books either.
Rape is only by force in those states. Obviously witnesses would say that it didnt look like she was forcing him to do anything i imagine If they have some. The boys in experience lead to this because he didnt grab the junk while making out or flirting with her.

AH seems there isnt a specific law per se but there is something. Still dont condone murder though.

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.[1]


Section C states fraud machination. OK. Part one though specifically dictated RAPE is between a MALE and a FEMALE.
So legally its two men and not a woman correct until the re assignment.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

It was not a "She".

It was an "It".

And "it" wasn't being honest to itself or anyone else.

Such ignorance and insensitivity is fit for another thread entirely.

a reply to: yuppa

You can rape the willing by making them unaware it is occurring.

There are many ways to illustrate this, but all of them are considered sexual assault and or rape.

originally posted by: Infinitis
a reply to: yuppa

You can rape the willing by making them unaware it is occurring.

There are many ways to illustrate this, but all of them are considered sexual assault and or rape.

being UNAWARE usually means unconscious or unable to make a decision. the boy was aware he was getting a hummer. ANd according to what I posted there IS a loophole in the philipino law stating "rape" as between a man and a woman,but not specifically a man and a man. Diffrent country different interpretations.

a reply to: yuppa

But consider the old Costume Party Switcharoo example.

You attend a costume party with your wife, another man dressed the same as you slips in when you are away, pretending to be you in order to have sex with your wife. In my opinion that would be rape too; and comparable.

Of course I am speaking philosophically, not legally

only a moron falls for the costume party switch lol.